If you know something more about modern "evolutionary biologists" who are not "darwinists" and haven't been fired from their Uni yet (except Behe and biologists from Uni Prague hehe) let me know. I quoted Heikertinger, Mc Atee, Portman, Goldschmidt, Neubauer, Komarek, Petr and Davison who are no way orthodox neo-darwinists and who dismissed "natural selection" and "random mutation" as the source of evolution - or mimicry. I would say many of their arguments might be neglected - but not refuted.

Let me know who refuted 45 years lasting research of US agriculture department of 80.000 stomach contents of birds and of so called "aposematism" of insects (the same for Csiki conclusion about 2.900 birds stomachs Hungary 1905-1910) . The argument that they didn't base their conclusions on "representative sample" is no sufficient unless modern "evolutionary biologists" do the same "representative research" themselves. I would say some dubious experiments with stressed caged birds are no way "representative research" dismissing voluminous observation of behaviour of birds in free done in past.

Sure, Marty

Whatever you say. "Darwinists" are obviously completely wrong about all of this. Nobody can argue with a refutation of 45 years of stomach content analysis...

But there must be a better explanation that you and the other refuters have some evidence for. So perhaps now you can divulge your explanation of how those dragonflies got those colors and patterns.

I'm all ears...

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. - Pattiann Rogers

If you know something more about modern "evolutionary biologists" who are not "darwinists" and haven't been fired from their Uni yet (except Behe and biologists from Uni Prague hehe) let me know. I quoted Heikertinger, Mc Atee, Portman, Goldschmidt, Neubauer, Komarek, Petr and Davison who are no way orthodox neo-darwinists and who dismissed "natural selection" and "random mutation" as the source of evolution - or mimicry. I would say many of their arguments might be neglected - but not refuted.

Let me know who refuted 45 years lasting research of US agriculture department of 80.000 stomach contents of birds and of so called "aposematism" of insects (the same for Csiki conclusion about 2.900 birds stomachs Hungary 1905-1910) . The argument that they didn't base their conclusions on "representative sample" is no sufficient unless modern "evolutionary biologists" do the same "representative research" themselves. I would say some dubious experiments with stressed caged birds are no way "representative research" dismissing voluminous observation of behaviour of birds in free done in past.

Sure, Marty

Whatever you say. "Darwinists" are obviously completely wrong about all of this. Nobody can argue with a refutation of 45 years of stomach content analysis...

But there must be a better explanation that you and the other refuters have some evidence for. So perhaps now you can divulge your explanation of how those dragonflies got those colors and patterns.

I'm all ears...

Obviously "natural selection" is no explanation of it.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

If you know something more about modern "evolutionary biologists" who are not "darwinists" and haven't been fired from their Uni yet (except Behe and biologists from Uni Prague hehe) let me know. I quoted Heikertinger, Mc Atee, Portman, Goldschmidt, Neubauer, Komarek, Petr and Davison who are no way orthodox neo-darwinists and who dismissed "natural selection" and "random mutation" as the source of evolution - or mimicry. I would say many of their arguments might be neglected - but not refuted.

Let me know who refuted 45 years lasting research of US agriculture department of 80.000 stomach contents of birds and of so called "aposematism" of insects (the same for Csiki conclusion about 2.900 birds stomachs Hungary 1905-1910) . The argument that they didn't base their conclusions on "representative sample" is no sufficient unless modern "evolutionary biologists" do the same "representative research" themselves. I would say some dubious experiments with stressed caged birds are no way "representative research" dismissing voluminous observation of behaviour of birds in free done in past.

Sure, Marty

Whatever you say. "Darwinists" are obviously completely wrong about all of this. Nobody can argue with a refutation of 45 years of stomach content analysis...

But there must be a better explanation that you and the other refuters have some evidence for. So perhaps now you can divulge your explanation of how those dragonflies got those colors and patterns.

I'm all ears...

Obviously "natural selection" is no explanation of it.

What is?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

They have never produced any arguments except denigration, abuses, stupid questions and nonsensical babbling. The whole discussion at AtBC is moderated by idiot LouFCD who has no slightest idea about justice.

Idiots here are unable to discuss any issue. The only thing they are able to do is to "google out" some neodarwinian article and to parrot the first page of it.

This is not a forum, this is a cage of fools.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

But you can hand down a message to LouFCD from professor John Davison.

If natural selection does not explain variation, Martin, what does?

Why won't you answer this?

Quote

LouFCD can kiss him on his purple blister.

That seems to be your job, Marty.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus